Share this story

Xfinity Mobile's unlimited data plan costs $45 per line per month, but video streams are generally limited to 480p resolution. Comcast yesterday announced a new $20-per-month HD Pass "for an upgrade to HD video resolution on Unlimited lines (720p on phone and 1080p on tablets)." That raises the monthly price to $65.

Further Reading

Xfinity Mobile does offer cheaper options with HD video if you don't need unlimited data. Comcast said it now allows HD streaming on its limited plans, which cost $12 a month for 1GB, $30 for 3GB, and $60 for 10GB. Comcast charges $12 for each additional gigabyte if you go over your limit. Comcast also now offers a "Data Saver" feature to limited-plan customers, which turns off HD streaming in order to reduce data usage.

Xfinity Mobile has been available since 2017 and is only for Comcast home Internet customers. Comcast doesn't operate its own cellular network, so it resells Verizon Wireless service.

Xfinity Mobile started limiting video streams to 480p by default a year ago. Comcast temporarily allowed customers to contact customer service for a free upgrade to 720p video, but the company said that it would eventually start charging extra for that upgrade. The plan to charge extra for HD video was implemented with yesterday's announcement of the new $20 charge.

Limits on unlimited plan

The unlimited data plan isn't really unlimited, even aside from the video limitation. "After 20 GB of monthly data use, speeds are reduced to a maximum of 1.5Mbps download/750kbps upload, determined and applied on a per line basis," Comcast's plan information says. In addition to that, Comcast's unlimited customers may get slower speeds than other customers "in times of congestion," regardless of how much data they use.

All these limits likely help Comcast save money on its reseller agreement with Verizon. The new $20 HD pass doesn't lift the 1.5Mbps cap for unlimited customers who use more than 20GB, but Comcast says buying the pass does let users "access faster speeds when the network is congested, such as during concerts and sporting events." Basically, this means unlimited customers who pay $20 extra and use less than 20GB a month will get HD video and will not get slower speeds than limited-plan customers during network congestion.

The various speed restrictions do not apply when your phone is connected to a Comcast Wi-Fi hotspot. There are millions of those around the country, and Xfinity Mobile phones can automatically connect to them when in range.

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile- landline, and data inclusive plans all in for about €20 pm about 22USD, and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off or throttel even if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to be a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

Not to knock anyone here, but I don't know what's worse in these comment sections: The Europeans who come in and tell everyone how much better they have it, or the Canadians who are about to come in and tell you how much worse they have it.

I think it is high time FCC ( Yes we know Ajit Moron Pai won't ) and DoJ actually criminally convict CEOs of ISPs for fraud for false advertising unlimited.

Lawyers always argue about how words have a specific meaning in legal contracts. An allowing them to get away with what tantamounts to fraud for so long is simply allowing them to make a mockery of the justice system.

Make legislation that such advertising is equivalent to fraud and CEOs and Executives that approve it will be given 1 count per person affected. So if 10 million people buy an unlimited package and are not offered unlimited service as per definition of the word, they are held accountable for 10 million counts of fraud.

Companies have been making a mockery of the justice system for too long, and FTC and FCC are simply handing out slaps on the wrists every time they break contract or rules. Unless you actually threaten their freedom for their actions they will continue to abuse the system and write it off as a "cost of doing business".

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

You ask why in America

Special interests, money is speech, and state representatives work unlimited terms with a revolving door.

I've been researching plans in the US. This is now the norm. "Unlimited!!!" means slow. You have to get "Unlimited Super Uber Plus!!!" to get the best of everything, and even then they slow you down after X GB.

Basically all plans are now "unlimited". Even fixed GB plans usually give you very slow service (or insta-sell you another 1 GB) when you hit the stated GB.

Truthfully, I don't want unlimited. All I want is fast. Show me the super fast mobile services, then I might use GB of high speed as the next filter.

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

AT&T just throttled me to 128kbps now that I consumed my 10GB of monthly allotment.

Investigated switching to an unlimited plan - it would cost me $45 more a month for my four lines... on top of the $230 I pay already.

So how exactly do they get away with selling something as "unlimited" (assuming this refers to the amount of data) when they intentionally restrict the rate with which you can access it? Is that not limiting?

So how exactly do they get away with selling something as "unlimited" (assuming this refers to the amount of data) when they intentionally restrict the rate with which you can access it? Is that not limiting?

You just answered your own question. "Unlimited," at least here, is a measure of volume. We went through the whole "speed" thing a decade or two ago with home internet services, which is why you now get speeds "Up to" X Gb/s. (Or on mobile, it's defined by the nebulous "4G/LTE" or "2G" speeds.

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

AT&T just throttled me to 128kbps now that I consumed my 10GB of monthly allotment.

Investigated switching to an unlimited plan - it would cost me $45 more a month for my four lines... on top of the $230 I pay already.

Yeah, we suck.

Check tmobile where you livework and play normally. if the coverage is there then they are less by a decent amount(plus the higher teir tmobile plans included taxes and fees, att and verzion plans are more and then plus taxes and fees

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

This is part of it:

There are a lot of jurisdictions involved and a lot of labor required.

The other (more critical) part is a near-total capture of the legislative and regulatory process. The ISPs get tax breaks and rights-of-way predicated on their expansion/upgrade/performance, constantly fail to follow through on their obligations, and escape without consequences to strike another deal.

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

This is part of it:

There are a lot of jurisdictions involved and a lot of labor required.

The other (more critical) part is a near-total capture of the legislative and regulatory process. The ISPs get tax breaks and rights-of-way predicated on their expansion/upgrade/performance, constantly fail to follow through on their obligations, and escape without consequences to strike another deal.

You say that and show that, but you would think that say new York or PA would have solid coverage across the state and low prices, or a state like RI which is 90% below 500' above sea level would have great coverage.

I’m on it with a family of 5. It’s really good. We went from ~$250/mo on ATT to ~$50/mo on Xfinity. Coverage and service is nearly indistinguishable. In fact, it’s better, because any Xfinity WIFi signal you can jump on and use for data/calls without using your allotment.

You know what costs a lot less than $20 a month? A good VPN provider so you get full speed doing anything you want over whatever device you want.

Sadly, this becomes a "not-using-a-vpn-fee". Mark my words, it is only a matter of time until they apply this fee to use a VPN at full speed too. They'll just slow down ALL traffic they can't inspect for marketing purposes, unless you pay the higher fee.

But, I also can't help but think that Comcast has been a monopoly for too long, and think they can get away with the kind of crap that they do in the monopoly cable market, when they are just one of many players in the MVNO mobile phone provider space. Although, to be fair, they probably think they can get away with this because some other mobile operators are starting to do this crap too.

As a data-miserly duo, our bill fluctuates between $12-14/month. We've been on the verge but never crossed the line for the extra $12/GB. Spend what you like and stream where you want, but there's enough savings compared to other plans alone that we could buy new phones every year.

Xfinity Wireless / Comcast as noted is a MVNO on Verizon's network. Industrial sources say that Comcast pays Verizon $5 per GB. You do the math, any heavy user of wireless 4G video will quickly start costing serious money for Comcast, which is why Comcast is regularly trying to tighten the data usage that they get from Verizon.

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

This is part of it:

There are a lot of jurisdictions involved and a lot of labor required.

The other (more critical) part is a near-total capture of the legislative and regulatory process. The ISPs get tax breaks and rights-of-way predicated on their expansion/upgrade/performance, constantly fail to follow through on their obligations, and escape without consequences to strike another deal.

You say that and show that, but you would think that say new York or PA would have solid coverage across the state and low prices, or a state like RI which is 90% below 500' above sea level would have great coverage.

niether of which is true.

Still doesn't change the fact that RI has 50% the population density of the UK, NY less than 25%, PA around 16%, and poor Canada at 1.4% of the density. If you're really trying to hit solid coverage across the whole state, it's still a whole lot more effort.

I'm just not sure how much that actually comes into play over the lack of actual competition in the marketplace though.

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

This is part of it:

There are a lot of jurisdictions involved and a lot of labor required.

The other (more critical) part is a near-total capture of the legislative and regulatory process. The ISPs get tax breaks and rights-of-way predicated on their expansion/upgrade/performance, constantly fail to follow through on their obligations, and escape without consequences to strike another deal.

You say that and show that, but you would think that say new York or PA would have solid coverage across the state and low prices, or a state like RI which is 90% below 500' above sea level would have great coverage.

niether of which is true.

Still doesn't change the fact that RI has 50% the population density of the UK, NY less than 25%, PA around 16%, and poor Canada at 1.4% of the density. If you're really trying to hit solid coverage across the whole state, it's still a whole lot more effort.

I'm just not sure how much that actually comes into play over the lack of actual competition in the marketplace though.

Sasktel, which has reasonable rates by Canadian standards and serves a million people over an area half the size of Texas, made a couple hundred million in profit last year. Also, a lot of the country is mostly empty space, and the highly populated parts are fairly dense. It's pure profiteering and greed.

edit: also, our neighbours in Manitoba used to have a similar crown corp telco, but went to shit when they sold it to one of the big players. The big corps are constantly fighting even the most basic of rules and consumer protections, and a lot of their billing and service practices basically amount to mass scale fraud.

I’m on it with a family of 5. It’s really good. We went from ~$250/mo on ATT to ~$50/mo on Xfinity. Coverage and service is nearly indistinguishable. In fact, it’s better, because any Xfinity WIFi signal you can jump on and use for data/calls without using your allotment.

Or do you have a more specific criticism beyond “Comcast sucks?”

While I applaud your ingenuity...I hope no one in your family is using any app that requires a modicum of security on an open and public Xfinity WIFI signal.

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

This is part of it:

There are a lot of jurisdictions involved and a lot of labor required.

The other (more critical) part is a near-total capture of the legislative and regulatory process. The ISPs get tax breaks and rights-of-way predicated on their expansion/upgrade/performance, constantly fail to follow through on their obligations, and escape without consequences to strike another deal.

You say that and show that, but you would think that say new York or PA would have solid coverage across the state and low prices, or a state like RI which is 90% below 500' above sea level would have great coverage.

niether of which is true.

You are confusing consumer pricing with carrier operating costs. It costs the carrier's much less to operate in places like NYC and NJ than rural Montana, but it is also where they are poised to make the best margins in order to pay/subsidize the high infrastructure costs of rural areas, which are absolutely abundant in the US.

Maintaining thousands of miles of cable in sparely populated areas is usually a money-losing operation, but ISP's usually have to provide for everyone in a given area, not just in cities, when they are approved to operate by a local government.

EDIT: If you also look at population density map and topo map, the infrastructure costs become more evident than just a flat scale.

As a data-miserly duo, our bill fluctuates between $12-14/month. We've been on the verge but never crossed the line for the extra $12/GB. Spend what you like and stream where you want, but there's enough savings compared to other plans alone that we could buy new phones every year.

If that's the case, you'd do same or better with TracFone.

After getting burned by Scamcast in so many ways over the years, no way will I ever pay them for the privilege of jumping through their ridiculous hoops.

Xfinity Wireless / Comcast as noted is a MVNO on Verizon's network. Industrial sources say that Comcast pays Verizon $5 per GB. You do the math, any heavy user of wireless 4G video will quickly start costing serious money for Comcast, which is why Comcast is regularly trying to tighten the data usage that they get from Verizon.

Maybe Comcast should have gotten a better deal or used a different network. Or not try to sell a limited "unlimited" plan. Just do what Google does - charge people $10/GB, pocket 5.

The problem with unlimited plans is they never are. As soon as you start to use lots of bandwidth, they start to find ways to turn off all the things you would *actually* use unlimited data for.

As a data-miserly duo, our bill fluctuates between $12-14/month. We've been on the verge but never crossed the line for the extra $12/GB. Spend what you like and stream where you want, but there's enough savings compared to other plans alone that we could buy new phones every year.

Agreed! I have been on this for about 2 years, with 2 phones. Always use wifi, so my bill is under $8 a month for unlimited calling and texts. and 100MB of data. Between 100MB and 1 GB it's around $17 which I think I have only done 2 times in 2 years. My wife's phone is on Tello, which is a Sprint MVNO, and it's only $14 for 2GB or $19 for 4GB.

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

This is part of it:

There are a lot of jurisdictions involved and a lot of labor required.

The other (more critical) part is a near-total capture of the legislative and regulatory process. The ISPs get tax breaks and rights-of-way predicated on their expansion/upgrade/performance, constantly fail to follow through on their obligations, and escape without consequences to strike another deal.

It is even worse than that image.

The bigger island to the east of Ireland has noting to do with us (save a dwindling influence in the northern provence) so the coverage area is even smaller. However the population is smaller too, about only 4.5m.

Then we have our communist government who about 15 years ago used everyones funds to roll out a nation wide rural 3G broadband scheme to get 3G data coverage to 99% of population and tendered the operation of it to the teleco's, capping the max that they could charge. (About €20 pm).Now in 2019 they are at it again, they are rolling out 1Gbs "fibre to the home" to all homes on the island, and lots have it already.There are plenty of farmers with real 150Mbs fibre plans with true unlimited contracts using it to watch ploughing youtube videos' and there are rural homes and business with full bandwidth 1Gbs connections too.

I wonder if much like the federal highways for motor traffic, could the wisdom of the federal government be used to build data highways too.

Seems like though since the privatisation of the nations services has become the accepted norm in the USA that this might be a "pipe dream".

meanwhile here in rural Ireland we have 4G unlimited voice - mobile landline, and data plans for about €20 pm about 22USD and unlimited means 60Gb but in reality they never cut anyone off if over 150Gb. What gives in the USA which is supposed to a leader in tech but is worse than many 3rd world countries in internet delivery?

This is part of it:

There are a lot of jurisdictions involved and a lot of labor required.

The other (more critical) part is a near-total capture of the legislative and regulatory process. The ISPs get tax breaks and rights-of-way predicated on their expansion/upgrade/performance, constantly fail to follow through on their obligations, and escape without consequences to strike another deal.

It is even worse than that image.

The bigger island to the east of Ireland has noting to do with us (save a dwindling influence in the northern provence) so the coverage area is even smaller. However the population is smaller too, about only 4.5m.

Then we have our communist government who about 15 years used everyones funds to roll out a nation wide rural 3G broadband scheme to get 3G data coverage to 99% of population and tendered the operation of it to the teleco's, capping the max that they could charge. (About €20 pm).Now in 2019 they are at it again, they are rolling out 1Gbs "fibre to the home" to all homes on the island, and lots have it already.There are plenty of farmers with real 150Mbs fibre plans with true unlimited contracts using it to watch ploughing youtube videos' and there are rural homes and business with full bandwidth 1Gbs connections too.

I wonder if much like the federal highways for motor traffic, could the wisdom of the federal government be used to build data highways too.

Seems like though since the privatisation of the nations services has become the accepted norm in the USA that this might be a "pipe dream".

Ah, I see the problem! You've skipped the "privatize the profits" step. Unfortunate.